It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Sword
I've noticed an increase in sensationalist post topics due to the earthquake and subsequent nuclear emergency in Japan.
Shouldn't there be a rule on ATS about not making such threads?
Especially threads with titles like "Could x be the sign of x" when the subjects in question are completely unrelated.
It's getting annoying and akin to reading the Weekly World News.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
What I find so peturbatory about some posts, specificaly ones pertaining to the risks of nuclear devastation that may arise from the Japan Disaster, and in more general terms throughout the site, is that the fallacies being assumed by some posters, and OP's , would make themselves clear to those making the errors if they had but rudimentary understanding of the science that they are talking about.
I can assure you , I have no qualifications in the subjects often discussed here, but I have acquired along the road of my life, accurate and widely available information on many subjects, across many feilds. While I understand that because of that, my word holds little weight, I can at least discern ideas of significant merit, from worries surrounding falsehoods. This should be the norm here, and when I first joined, it very much seemed that way.
Nowadays, it does seem as if the general knowledge of some posters and OP's is lacking in the sharp edge which makes the difference between flailing paranoia and informed concern, and although I believe it is important that everybody who has something to say, has the chance to say it, I also believe that outright refusal to re-evaluate ones position when informed by those who have knowledge as well as logic and sense, is detrimental to the cause of denying ignorance, and is RIFE amongst some sectors of the membership.
That said, its important that informed members prevent themselves from becoming aloof when faced with fallacies and confusion. It is by no means the case, that the majority of ill informed posters are incapable of altering thier perceptions to fit reality. In many ways the voicing of flawed opinion is a beacon, a request for new data from some members. I would advocate a friendly and understanding approach when dealing with a clearly under informed post or OP.
Originaly posted by Brindle
Could this thread be the sign of a whole new world forming?
Originally posted by notsofast
Just like I can avoid concvetsations with idiots in real life.
Originally posted by Maka213
I'm all for free speech but at least make a rule that it has to be coherent and not the ramblings of some waterhead looking for attention.I don't think people need censored but they should have to fit a certain criteria in order to start a thread.
Originally posted by yeahright
On the other hand, if a number of members want to have discussions about lizard people overtaking the news networks, or whales generating tsunamis, etc ad infinitum, they should be free to do it in an environment free of personal attack and incivility. That's the way we've grown, that's the way we intend to operate.
Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by Maka213
There's a difference between "what if?" speculation and deliberately posting false info. Skunk Works is a forum for speculation. If someone deliberately posts false info, that's an immediately bannable offense. There's no rule against speculation.